"You put Lloyd Blankfein in pound-me-in-the-ass prison for one six-month term, and all this bull**** would stop, all over Wall Street," says a former congressional aide. "That's all it would take. Just once."

Increase the membership in the House of Representatives to a ratio of 1 Congressman for each 100,000 (or 50,000?) citizens (from 1 congressman for each 715,000 citizens) and the "citizens united" quandary will end in the House of Representatives.

Next we should consider Unicameralism. Have only one parliamentary body, that seats both Senators (for six years) and Congressmen (for two years), like Nebraska does.

07-05-2012, 06:59 AM

Winstonbiggs

Is the editorial suggesting that US Attorneys are in the bag for Congress or the Administration? Prove it.

I love lib editorialist suggesting throwing people in jail as a solution to risk. There is a difference between criminal behavior and risk. There are plenty of investigations going on at both the State and Federal level and people are being prosecuted. Proof of a crime and allegations of a crime aren't the same thing.

If Barney Frank and Dodd where thrown in Jail, it might give elected officials pause about pushing banks to lend money to people who can't possibly pay it back. If rating agencies were conspiring to help sell mortgages for investment houses maybe that should be prosecuted. If the SEC knew about it maybe we should throw them in jail. If they didn't know about it maybe we should throw them out of work and stop paying for it?

Prosecutions are moving ahead in spite of the fact that government regulators like the SEC dropped the ball just like they did with the BP oil spill. Was government conspiring to sell oil to BP. Where they conspiring to drop loan costs to people who couldn't pay them back? Was the FDA conspiring with drug companies to put unsafe drugs on the market and tainted food? Maybe we should be locking up regulators along with the bankers?

07-05-2012, 07:48 AM

intelligentjetsfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Is the editorial suggesting that US Attorneys are in the bag for Congress or the Administration? Prove it.

I love lib editorialist suggesting throwing people in jail as a solution to risk. There is a difference between criminal behavior and risk. There are plenty of investigations going on at both the State and Federal level and people are being prosecuted. Proof of a crime and allegations of a crime aren't the same thing.

If Barney Frank and Dodd where thrown in Jail, it might give elected officials pause about pushing banks to lend money to people who can't possibly pay it back. If rating agencies were conspiring to help sell mortgages for investment houses maybe that should be prosecuted. If the SEC knew about it maybe we should throw them in jail. If they didn't know about it maybe we should throw them out of work and stop paying for it?

Prosecutions are moving ahead in spite of the fact that government regulators like the SEC dropped the ball just like they did with the BP oil spill. Was government conspiring to sell oil to BP. Where they conspiring to drop loan costs to people who couldn't pay them back? Was the FDA conspiring with drug companies to put unsafe drugs on the market and tainted food? Maybe we should be locking up regulators along with the bankers?

Maybe we should.

And I won't hold my breath waiting for these investigations to end in arrests; I will believe it when I see the frauds from Wall Street in prison. Frank and Dodd should be in prison too, without question. But why just start with them?

As for building cases; its a lot harder when the people you are trying to investigate own the lawmakers.

07-05-2012, 09:34 AM

Winstonbiggs

Quote:

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Maybe we should.

And I won't hold my breath waiting for these investigations to end in arrests; I will believe it when I see the frauds from Wall Street in prison. Frank and Dodd should be in prison too, without question. But why just start with them?

As for building cases; its a lot harder when the people you are trying to investigate own the lawmakers.

Are you suggesting US Attorney's and Federal Judges are in the bag for Congress?

Again I have no issue bringing guys to justice. I find it disgraceful to see libs calling for people to be locked up without enough evidence to prosecute. Suggesting locking people up because you feel a crime was committed sounds like the kind of State I want no part of. It's bad enough conservatives support locking people up without due process now I'm hearing it from the libs.

I'm a proud supporter of the ACLU and that includes jusutice for bankers along with drug offenders.

07-05-2012, 10:55 AM

Warfish

They're not in jail because you, Buster and IJF have not yet posted enough threads on the subject.

Obama is simply waiting for you to show how much you care about this issue, by starting new threads. As soon as you reach his threshold of passion, these pig-dog banksters will surely see the shining light of Obama'ian Justice.

So get posting!:yes:

07-05-2012, 12:21 PM

Winstonbiggs

Quote:

Originally Posted by Buster

Don't kid yourself the "ease regulation" crowd of the Republican Party is part of this too.

Increase the membership in the House of Representatives to a ratio of 1 Congressman for each 100,000 (or 50,000?) citizens (from 1 congressman for each 715,000 citizens) and the "citizens united" quandary will end in the House of Representatives.

Next we should consider Unicameralism. Have only one parliamentary body, that seats both Senators (for six years) and Congressmen (for two years), like Nebraska does.

You should read the report that came out today. Countrywide directly bribed Congresspersons and their aids to fend off regulation which the Bush administration was trying to get through on subprime loans.

This wasn't about just contributions for access this was direct bribes in the form of below market loans to Congressman and their aids.

What I love is the financial reform act carries Chris Dodds name on it, the same Chris Dodd who took a direct bribe from Countrywide to help fannie keep funding those subprime loans before the entire house of cards caved in on itself.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The former Countrywide Financial Corp., whose subprime loans helped start the nation's foreclosure crisis, made hundreds of discount loans to buy influence with members of Congress, congressional staff, top government officials and executives of troubled mortgage giant Fannie Mae, according to a House report.

The report, obtained by The Associated Press, said the discounts - from January 1996 to June 2008 - were not only aimed at gaining influence for the company but to help Fannie Mae. Countrywide's business depended largely on Fannie, which at the time was trying to fend off more government regulation but eventually had to come under government control.

Fannie Mae was responsible for purchasing a large volume of Countrywide's subprime mortgages. Countrywide was taken over by Bank of America in January 2008, relieving the financial services industry and regulators from the messy task of cleaning up the bankruptcy of a company that was servicing 9 million U.S. home loans worth $1.5 trillion at a time when the nation faced a widening credit crisis, massive foreclosures and an economic downturn.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee also named six current and former members of Congress who received discount loans, but all of their names had surfaced previously. Other previously mentioned names included former top executive branch officials and three chief executives of Fannie Mae.

"Documents and testimony obtained by the committee show the VIP loan program was a tool used by Countrywide to build goodwill with lawmakers and other individuals positioned to benefit the company," the report said. "In the years that led up to the 2007 housing market decline, Countrywide VIPs were positioned to affect dozens of pieces of legislation that would have reformed Fannie" and its rival Freddie Mac, the committee said.

Some of the discounts were ordered personally by former Countrywide chief executive Angelo Mozilo. Those recipients were known as "Friends of Angelo."

"The Committee's investigation found Countrywide lobbyists and CEO Angelo Mozilo used discounted loans as a tool to ingratiate itself with policymakers in an effort to benefit the company's business interests," said Rep. Darrell Issa, a California Republican who heads the committee. "This preferential treatment — that varied depending on the influence of the borrower — was not routinely offered to the public."

Issa said that while Mozilo mocked Fannie Mae and top executives for its crony capitalism business model, he would nonetheless personally intercede to ensure executives had access to discounted Countrywide loans. "These relationships helped Mozilo increase his own company's profits while dumping the risk of bad loans on taxpayers," the report said.

The Justice Department has not prosecuted any Countrywide official, but the House committee's report said documents and testimony show that Mozilo and company lobbyists "may have skirted the federal bribery statute by keeping conversations about discounts and other forms of preferential treatment internal. Rather than making quid pro quo arrangements with lawmakers and staff, Countrywide used the VIP loan program to cast a wide net of influence."

The Securities and Exchange Commission in October 2010 slapped Mozilo with a $22.5 million penalty to settle charges that he and two other former Countrywide executives misled investors as the subprime mortgage crisis began. Mozilo also was banned from ever again serving as an officer or director of a publicly traded company.

He also agreed to pay another $45 million to settle other violations for a total settlement of $67.5 million that was to be returned to investors who were harmed.

The report said that until the housing market became swamped with foreclosures, "Countrywide's effort to build goodwill on Capitol Hill worked."

The company became a trusted adviser in Congress and was consulted when the House Financial Services Committee and Senate Banking Committee considered reform of Fannie and Freddie and unfair lending practices.

"If Countrywide's lobbyists, and Mozilo himself, were more strictly prohibited from arranging preferential treatment for members of Congress and congressional staff, it is possible that efforts to reform (Fannie and Freddie) would have been met with less resistance," the report said.

The report said Fannie Mae assigned as many as 70 lobbyists to the Financial Services Committee while it considered legislation to overhaul the company from 2000 to 2005. Four reform bills were introduced in the House during the period, and none made it out of the committee.

Hit with staggering losses, Fannie and Freddie came under government control in September 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2011, the Treasury Department had committed more than $183 billion to support the two companies - and there's no end in sight.

Among those who received loan discounts from Countrywide, the report said, were:

-Former Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, D-Conn.

-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D.

-Mary Jane Collipriest, who was communications director for former Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, then a member of the Banking Committee. The report said Dodd referred Collipriest to Countrywide's VIP unit. Dodd, when commenting on his own loans, has said he was unaware of the discount program.

-Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-N.Y., former chairman of the Oversight Committee. Towns issued the first subpoena to Bank of America for Countrywide documents, and current Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., subpoenaed more documents. The committee said that in responding to the Towns subpoena, Bank of America left out documents related to Towns' loan.

-Rep. Elton Gallegly, R-Calif.

-Top staff members of the House Financial Services Committee.

-A staff member of Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Texas, a member of the Financial Services Committee.

-Former Rep. Tom Campbell, R-Calif.

-Former Housing and Urban Development Secretaries Alphonso Jackson and Henry Cisneros; and former Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala. The VIP unit processed Cisneros' loan after he joined Fannie's board of directors.

-Rep. Pete Sessions, R-Texas, was an exception. He told the VIP unit not to give him a discount, and he did not receive one.

-Former Fannie Mae heads James Johnson, Daniel Mudd and Franklin Raines. Countrywide took a loss on Mudd's loan. Fannie employees were the most frequent recipients of VIP loans. Johnson received a discount after Mozilo waived problems with his credit rating.

The report said Mozilo "ordered the loan approved, and gave Johnson a break. He instructed the VIP unit: 'Charge him 1/2 under prime. Don't worry about (the credit score). He is constantly on the road and therefore pays his bills on an irregular basis but he ultimately pays them.'"

Johnson in 2008 resigned as a leader of then-candidate Barack Obama's vice presidential search committee after The Wall Street Journal reported he had received $7 million in Countrywide discounted loans.

The report said those who received the discounts knew the loans were handled by a special VIP unit.

"The documents produced by the bank show that VIP borrowers received paperwork from Countrywide that clearly identified the VIP unit as the point of contact," the committee said.

The standard discount was 0.5 waived points. Countrywide also waived junk fees that usually ranged from $350 to $400.

07-05-2012, 01:26 PM

intelligentjetsfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Winstonbiggs

Are you suggesting US Attorney's and Federal Judges are in the bag for Congress?

Again I have no issue bringing guys to justice. I find it disgraceful to see libs calling for people to be locked up without enough evidence to prosecute. Suggesting locking people up because you feel a crime was committed sounds like the kind of State I want no part of. It's bad enough conservatives support locking people up without due process now I'm hearing it from the libs.

I'm a proud supporter of the ACLU and that includes jusutice for bankers along with drug offenders.

wow, who said we should lock up people without proper evidence :huh:

The suggestion I made, and stand by, is that its much more difficult to investigate a crime when the people you are investigating own the lawmakers and game the system.

07-05-2012, 01:30 PM

Warfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

its much more difficult to investigate a crime when the people you are investigating ARE the lawmakers and game the system.

Fixed.

07-05-2012, 01:45 PM

intelligentjetsfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

They're not in jail because you, Buster and IJF have not yet posted enough threads on the subject.

Obama is simply waiting for you to show how much you care about this issue, by starting new threads. As soon as you reach his threshold of passion, these pig-dog banksters will surely see the shining light of Obama'ian Justice.

So get posting!:yes:

Fish, we have pledged to stop posting about corruption on Wall Street because we realized that it doesn't exist. We logged on to the Heritage Foundation to research Corporate greed but we were redirected to the topic of acceptable risk taking. Hell, we tried to look up the definition of greed and this is what Heritage gave us;

greed [griːd]
1. An act that causes hardship to powerful corruptions. EX: a serf who makes outlandish demands to employers such as decent health benefits.

Then we googled corporate scams that fleece America and all we kept getting was Trickle down economics. :huh:

07-05-2012, 01:51 PM

Warfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

Fish, we have pledged to stop posting about corruption on Wall Street because we realized that it doesn't exist. We logged on to the Heritage Foundation to research Corporate greed but we were redirected to the topic of acceptable risk taking. Hell, we tried to look up the definition of greed and this is what Heritage gave us;

Then we googled corporate scams that fleece America and all we kept getting was Trickle down economics. :huh:

TBDR. :zzz:

Greed is legal.

Illegallity is illegal.

Act and react accordingly.

Weak dodge is weak Mr. Edwards. Maybe you should look inward my proud (D) friend, and clean thine own house of corruption, before worrying about it from everyone else. The day you start being as aggressive towards the Edwards, the Chris Dodds, the William Jerrerson's and the Charlie Rangel's, and the baised-to-no-end-dishonest-as-FOX MCNBC's, maybe, just maybe, you might actually be taken seriously as a crusader against corruption and dishonesty.

Till then, you're just another in a long, LONG, line of "My Party does it, it's ok, the other side does it, it's not" hacks, frankly.

Selective moral outrage by the politically selective lecturers of morality.

07-05-2012, 02:08 PM

intelligentjetsfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

TBDR. :zzz:

Greed is legal.

Illegallity is illegal.

Act and react accordingly.

Weak dodge is weak Mr. Edwards. Maybe you should look inward my proud (D) friend, and clean thine own house of corruption, before worrying about it from everyone else. The day you start being as aggressive towards the Edwards, the Chris Dodds, the William Jerrerson's and the Charlie Rangel's, and the baised-to-no-end-dishonest-as-FOX MCNBC's, maybe, just maybe, you might actually be taken seriously as a crusader against corruption and dishonesty.

Till then, you're just another in a long, LONG, line of "My Party does it, it's ok, the other side does it, it's not" hacks, frankly.

Selective moral outrage by the politically selective lecturers of morality.

A rotten apple is still rotten regardless of the kind, my debating friend. My political persuasions may lead me to being a progressive liberal but I have no illusions as to the people who represent my party. Here is a quote that accurately represents my political argument in this thread;

“Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.

Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.”
― Henry A. Wallace

07-05-2012, 02:21 PM

Warfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

“Still another danger is represented by those who, paying lip service to democracy and the common welfare, in their insatiable greed for money and the power which money gives, do not hesitate surreptitiously to evade the laws designed to safeguard the public from monopolistic extortion.

1. Who cares what people pay "lip service" to?

2. Greed is legal and always will be.

3. "Evading" Law is a dishonest way of saying "Not Actually breaking the Law, but Still Doing Things We don't Like".

Quote:

Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection.

Applies to (R) and (D) equally. Both crave power over all other things, and use whatever tool exists to get it. neither is "better" than the other in this way, yet you universally argue and point out only one side of an equal, two-sided coin.

Quote:

They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution.

Funny, sounds alot like Modern Liberalism/Collectivism to me.

It's a weak argument, given that Liberalism stands for power of the State to compel from the citizenry what it (the liberal ruling elite) think best, while the Right, equally power hungry, limits their state based compulsion to issues moral and religious. They certainly support corporatism, btu corporatism cannot compel won it's own.

Quote:

They are patriotic in time of war because it is to their interest to be so, but in time of peace they follow power and the dollar wherever they may lead.”

Quote:

― Henry A. Wallace

Again, shockingly, I fail to see a major divide between right and left in this warning.

And that, my friend, is your problem. You support a side equally guilty in almost every way, worse in quite a few, yet stand and proudly proclaim your crusade without even a hint of how hypocritical and obviously so you are.

07-05-2012, 02:29 PM

intelligentjetsfan

Quote:

Originally Posted by Warfish

1. Who cares what people pay "lip service" to?

2. Greed is legal and always will be.

3. "Evading" Law is a dishonest way of saying "Not Actually breaking the Law, but Still Doing Things We don't Like".

Applies to (R) and (D) equally. Both crave power over all other things, and use whatever tool exists to get it. neither is "better" than the other in this way, yet you universally argue and point out only one side of an equal, two-sided coin.

Funny, sounds alot like Modern Liberalism/Collectivism to me.

It's a weak argument, given that Liberalism stands for power of the State to compel from the citizenry what it (the liberal ruling elite) think best, while the Right, equally power hungry, limits their state based compulsion to issues moral and religious. They certainly support corporatism, btu corporatism cannot compel won it's own.

Again, shockingly, I fail to see a major divide between right and left in this warning.

And that, my friend, is your problem. You support a side equally guilty in almost every way, worse in quite a few, yet stand and proudly proclaim your crusade without even a hint of how hypocritical and obviously so you are.

A rotten apple is still rotten regardless of the kind, my debating friend. My political persuasions may lead me to being a progressive liberal but I have no illusions as to the people who represent my party. (pss-you must have missed this part of my post ;))

07-05-2012, 02:34 PM

Warfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan

A rotten apple is still rotten regardless of the kind, my debating friend.

Indeed.

Difference is, I discard both rotten apples.

You bake a pie out of one of them, whilst beating the other over and over with a hammer.